The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Introduction
The Association of the Southern East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a regional organization that was founded in 1967. The organization is a coalition of 10 Indochina nations namely; Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand Vietnam, and Myanmar. The ASEAN organization holds a particular position in the southern region since it focuses on the integration of other issues, such as politics, putting much weight on security, health sector, migration, energy resources, cooperation, and the environment, apart from the economy (Henderson, 2014). Primarily, the ASEAN community is guided by three broad pillars; the political, economic, and the social-culturally pillar of which, all are validated by the summit. Over the years the ASEAN community has gained strength due to their power of cooperation, session, and harmony, making it possible for this family to have full authority and the associated influence on trade, politics, and security along the Asia-pacific region (Shi 2016, p. 676). This paper seeks to reflect on the political-security aspect of the ASEAN community, providing a critical examination of its impact on the organization at large.
Political-Security Aspect of the ASEAN Community
Politically, cooperation of the South East Asia communities is based on three guiding principles commonly known as the “ASEAN way”. These directives include; the process of decision making, mutual respect for national sovereignty, and the non-interference of the member country’s affairs (Moon, 2017). However, there have been emerging debates and issues giving the detailed critique that the ASEAN was a major hindrance for to progress in many sectors. For instance, the small and politically inadequate secretariat will find it hard to implement the speculated agreement and adhere to the action plans due to lack of resources (Watanabe et al., 2015, p.62). Also, the ASEAN has no proper criterion to follow on the implementation of the agreed plans and also the lack of appropriate dispute settling mechanisms. These challenges make the realization of the ASEAN integration a mere fantasy. Despite the critiques, the ASEAN has scored high regarding confidence, building, and cooperation improvement amongst its diversified state member (Davies, 2016, p.110; Chang 2016, p.341).
Improved regional security is one of the reasons why ASEAN was founded. Security also covers the limitation of interference of other state members’ domestic affairs (Acharya 2014; Leifer 2013). Despite the agreements signed in the early years by members on security issues, still, distrust and lack of confidence swung on the faces of the state members. The resurrection of hope and confidence in security came in when the signing of ZOPFAN and TAC took place in 1970 and 1976 respectively. Later on, the ASEAN developed and embraced the bi, multi, and extra-lateral security initiatives that called for cooperation from the involved members.
The security architecture of the ASEAN region has been a question for quite long. The security issues have been raised by the natives owing to the fact that the ASEAN had little plans though, this it did not necessarily mean that the organization had not done something towards the concern. The ASEAN initiated an annual Regional Forum (ARF), which aimed at discussing regional security matters, thus, providing a platform of independence by preventing political dominance from the major power states (Jones 2016, p.650). The cooperation signed an agreement in the year 1995, which declared the Southeast Asian a nuclear free zone and agreed to take charge over the soil by not allowing developed countries to use their land for nuclear testing. Studies show that the annual meeting of the defense ministers that was conducted in 2005 has fostered the undisputable defense consultancy and cooperation, which in turn led to assurance, trust openness, and clearness. However, in approximately 22 years, the ASEAN has been challenged in obtaining its set goals. The first reason validating its failure is the lack of urgency to implement what was set. Moreover, the ASEAN has not been taking a keen interest in taking advantages of its associated dialogue partners such as; Australia, China. Japan, India, Russia, Republic of Korea, and New Zealand. These countries could have helped the ASEAN solve its disputes only if it could have taken advantage. Additionally, the ASEAN has not been involving China in resolving disputes alongside the region of the South China Sea. This has been accompanied with numerous obstacles hindering the ASEAN community from getting its regional political-security identity (Emmers, 2012).
Challenges facing ASEAN alongside the political-security
A couple of obstacles have been limiting the ability of the ASEAN political –security community. These include; lack of proper mechanisms for internal and external conflict resolution and also colliding national and geopolitical interest amongst the superior nations. Another challenge is the historical and cultural differences amongst the member states (Sukma, 2012, p.138). Internally, the ASEAN has been seen as weak due to incapacity to address human right abuse in Myanmar. It has also displayed weakness by not addressing the Sabah issue, which has created tension between Thailand and Malaysia.
According to ASEAN, the glut of agreements signed for the sake of safety included; SEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the five power defense contracts (FPDA), the bilateral security, and military agreements (Acharya, 2014). These agreements, especially the FPDA, contributed significantly to improving the safety of the region and that of the member state (Lee, 2011). Most developing countries have it that the ARF is just an agreement put in paper with no action. The raised debates say that the ARF will only be effective if they involve other influential countries such as the United States, Japan, and Australia, rather than focusing on extra-regional ASEAN. Positively, the Indonesia foreign minister responds to the critiques putting it clear that the unity along the southern region has been enhanced by the cooperation of the ARF, attracting more than 17 new members to the organization which has also been impressed and willingly signed the treaty of amity and collaboration (TAC). The minister further adds that they are not standing on the ground of intimidation just because the powerful nations are not in agreement with the ASEAN statement (Chachavalpongpun, 2011; Burton and Wurfel, 2016). He evidently speaks that the ARF is the only platform in Asia and Pacific where political and security dialogue is held and strategies laid for action.
Conclusion
The political- security pillar has continuously offered the ASEAN community an opportunity to learn from failures and appreciate their achievement. The intensity of the security issues calls for active cooperation from the member states .this led to the signing of a declaration of ASEAN Concord II in the year 2003, which indicated that the ASEAN community security should be put in place for the sake of the region’s security. Other sections of the declaration said the goals and objectives were putting stress on the importance of member’s cooperation (Lohman W, 2007). The ASEAN security community will mainly take part in countering terrorist attacks, prevent drug trafficking into the member’s regions and other transnational crimes. The efforts of anti-terror attacks and massive destruction of property will be made possible if ASEAN will build up the public and local capabilities.
Bibliography
Acharya, A., 2014. Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order. London: Routledge.
Burton, B. and Wurfel, D. eds., 2016. Southeast Asia in the new world order: the political economy of a dynamic region. London: Springer
Chachavalpongpun, P. ed., 2011. ASEAN-US Relations: What are the Talking Points? Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Chang, J.Y., 2016. Essence of security communities: explaining ASEAN. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 16(3), pp.335-369.
Davies, M., 2016. Women and development, not gender and politics: explaining ASEAN’s failure to engage with the women, peace and security agenda. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 38(1), pp.106-127.
Emmers, R., 2012. Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF. London: Routledge.
Henderson, J., 2014. Reassessing ASEAN. New York, NY: Routledge
Jones, L., 2016. Explaining the failure of the ASEAN economic community: The primacy of domestic political economy. The Pacific Review, 29(5), pp.647-670.
Lee, Y.Y., 2011. ASEAN Matters: Reflecting on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Singapore: World Scientific.
Leifer, M., 2013. ASEAN and the Security of South-East Asia (Routledge Revivals). London: Routledge.
Lohman, W., 2007. Guidelines for US Policy in Southeast Asia. Backgrounder, 2017, pp.1-9.
Moon, W., 2017. Regional Integration-Europe and Asia compared. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shi, X., 2016. The future of ASEAN energy mix: A SWOT analysis. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 53, pp.672-680.
Sukma, R., 2012. The ASEAN political and security community (APSC): opportunities and constraints for the R2P in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review, 25(1), pp.135-152.
Watanabe, K., Shimada, H., Fujimitsu, Y., Yonezu, K., Sugai, Y., Wahyudi, S., Gabo, J., Sasaoka, T., Tindell, T., Yasui, M. and Uchida, E., 2015. W-11 ASEAN-Japan Build-Up Cooperative Education Program for Global Human Resource Development in Earth Resources Engineering. In JSEE Annual Conference International Session Proceedings 2015 JSEE Annual Conference (pp. 60-65). Japanese Society for Engineering Education.